 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parrish v. Director of Revenue11/23/1999
eaves us without the benefit of her argument, if any, to support the trial court's decision.
Our review of the trial court's decision is controlled by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Therefore, the decision will be affirmed unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. At a court hearing to review the license revocation, the director has the burden of proof. McMaster v. Lohman, 941 S.W.2d 813, 815-16 (Mo. App.1997).
In a proceeding under section 577.041, the trial court is to determine (1) whether the person was arrested, (2) whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving while intoxicated, and (3) whether the person refused to submit to the test.
Harder v. Director of Revenue, 969 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). "Reasonable grounds" is virtually synonymous with probable cause. Baptist v. Lohman, 971 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). In determining whether there are reasonable grounds, the court must evaluate the situation from the viewpoint of a cautious, trained and prudent police officer at the time of the arrest. Id.
Here, Director satisfied its prima facie burden of proof supporting revocation of Driver's license. First, Director showed the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest Driver for driving while intoxicated. Driver ran a stop sign and drove erratically, crossing the center line of the road. After pulling her over, the officer noticed a moderate odor of intoxicants about her person. Driver was swaying and her eyes were watery. She had balance problems on the walk-and-turn test.
In addition, Driver scored six points on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. The standard scoring system on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test gives one point for eye movement indicative of alcohol influence for each of the three tests for each eye. The highest possible score is six points, while a score of four or more points is an indication that a suspect is intoxicated. See, State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Mo. banc 1997). Driver's score of six points is clearly indicative of intoxication.
Based on the officer's findings, Director showed the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe Driver was driving while intoxicated. Driver offered no evidence rebutting nor objected to the admission of the Director's evidence. In addition, the same report showed that Driver refused to submit to the breathalyzer test after being informed of her Miranda warnings and the Missouri Implied Consent Law. Again, Driver offered no evidence to rebut the Director's prima facie showing.
The record does not support the trial court's Conclusion that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to arrest Driver for driving while intoxicated or that Driver did not refuse the breathalyzer test. Consequently, the trial court erred in reinstating the driving privileges of Driver. We reverse and remand the cause to the trial court to enter a judgment reinstating the revocation of Driver's driving privileges.
Reversed and remanded.
|